Trivex

[CEO]

Both Trilogy (Younger) and Phoenix (Hoya) are based on the PPG material Trivex, so this certainly makes both materials close "cousins" to one another.

What really needs to be remembered about Trivex is that it is really a new category of material unlike anything else out there before it.

Basically all plastics have similarities, and typically can be put into two broad classifications: Thermosets and Thermoplastics. Polycarbonate is a thermoplastic, which means it can always be "reformed" by applying heat to it. This "flexibility" gives polycarbonate some of it's great properties such as impact resistance, but also leads to some of it's drawbacks such as being difficult to process to very thin centers, where it may be subjected to high processing "heat".

CR-39 on the other hand, is a thermoset. A thermoset is very similar to a thermoplastic in that it has long molecules as polycarbonate does, but during the curing process "cross links" are formed and this makes the material very stable and easy to process. Once a thermoset is "set", it can never be reformed, even through the application of heat.

Trivex, both Trilogy and Phoenix, is different. They form a whole new classification of material which is a sort of "quasi thermoset/thermoplastic". It takes on the great strength of a thermoplastic, but has the stability and optics of a thermoset.

Really we are in the very early days of this new category of material, just as we were once in the early days of CR-39 and Polycarbonate in the past.

I would be careful to judge either of these materials too quickly, since we are in these early stages. For example, reference above was made to Trilogy lenses which appeared not perfectly clear. Certainly this is not one of Trilogy inherent characteristics, but rather could reflect early samples which were sent to labs as testing, or could be one of the literally thousands of lenses which Younger has been supplying to the labs merely as test samples and may have had some production defects.

It would be missapropriate for me to try to compare Phoenix and Trilogy, since to me both represent different approaches to using the material Trivex. Both succeed in what they are really trying to do, and that is to introduce a whole new category of material to the industry, something that has only happened a only a very few times in our industry's past.

[Joann Raytar]

It may have actually been said already but I believe Trilogy will be the first to come out in a photochromic, is that true?

[sticklert]

I work for a Hoya Lab and we have been told that Phoenix will become available in transition by the first of the year. We will probably hear more in the next month or so.

[sandeepgoodbole]

Try for All in One

Originally posted by RT
Clarifications seem to be required here. First, I work for one of them there HOYA labs (gasp), and have had the chance to do some of the testing on Phoenix. "Trivex" is the name of the raw material sold by PPG. "Phoenix" is HOYA's proprietary version of Trivex. "Trilogy" is Younger's name. Since the material hasn't actually shipped yet, it's pretty tough to have formed an opinion so far.

The material is actually nothing like Spectralite, other than having an index of refraction around 1.53 (Spectralite is 1.537). The material processes very similar to polycarbonate, and has the same level of impact resistance, as was demonstrated rather violently at Vision Expo East. Yet chemically speaking, it is nothing like polycarbonate either.

As stated, Trivex/Phoenix/Trilogy has a much higher Abbe value (43-46, depending upon who you listen to) than polycarbonate, thus eliminating the distortion covered ad nauseam in the General Topics. This material also performs better than poly on the ISO Robustness test, chemical resistance (acetone doesn't hurt it), and in tensile strength testing (also demonstrated at V.E.E.). One of its best features is superior drilling capabilities--superior to any other material we've used. As such, it stands out among mid-index materials, which are notoriously prone to cracking when drilled.

It would be wrong, however, to think of Trivex/Phoenix/Trilogy merely as a replacement for polycarbonate. With a higher index of refraction than CR-39, a very low specific gravity (1.11), and a nominal surfaced center thickness of 1.3 mm, Phoenix lenses are about 35% thinner than CR-39, and significantly lighter. The combination of three features (good optics, impact resistance, and lightness) is what the "Tri" nomenclature is all about. With any other material, you can only get 2 out of the 3.

Since Trivex/Phoenix/Trilogy refers to a material, it is neither spheric or aspheric. That would be a property of the lens design. The first lens designs that will hit the market will be HOYA's GP Wide progressive and spherical single vision. Other lens designs, including aspheric SV will follow later, as will a Transitions version.

Stay tuned.

RT

Can you try making frames out of this Tougher an lighter Material?:idea: :idea:

[Bev Heishman]

I noticed that my Trivex samples from Younger and Hoya are markedly different in coloration. The Younger sample has a gray look reminescent of early poly where my Hoya sample reflects more of a water white effect. Comments from CEO?

[Pete Hanlin]

Can you try making frames out of this Tougher and lighter Material?

Frames made of polycarbonate (RecSpecs come to mind, but I'm sure there are others) are available for safety applications. Since optical quality isn't an issue when making a frame, I would imagine polycarbonate will continue to be used for frames.

The question, it seems to me, concerns the final price of trivex lenses. Polycarbonate lenses are inexpensive (basically the same or less than plastic). If trivex lenses are going to cost more than poly, my guess is they won't "make it" in the ophthalmic marketplace (after all, if optical quality was the most important issue, we'd all be selling glass).

I notice that the manufacturers working with trivex have decided to focus their demonstrations on the lack of "internal stress" in trivex lenses. The samples I've seen at the shows are somewhat "distressing" (pun intended). There are processes for casting poly blanks which do NOT result in a lot of internal stress, and one has to conclude that the demonstrators have been made to exaggerate the differences.

The Abbe Value is higher? How many patients really have complaints related to chromatic aberration (yes, I've had a few that I could trace to CA, but not many)? Most people stay within a relatively small zone in the lens, and the visual acuity of the eye away from our central vision is naturally cruddy anyway, so peripheral vision in straight ahead gaze isn't affected by CA.

I guess you can just put me down as a trivex skeptic (or as a poly fan, maybe I'm just biased). Now that the wholesalers have invested in machinery designed with poly in mind, we may find that even they have become fans of the only lens material to show significant growth over the past few years!